Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Sep 18;7(3):e79.
doi: 10.1002/oto2.79. eCollection 2023 Jul-Sep.

Acoustic Noise Levels in High-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners

Armaan F Akbar  1 , Zahra N Sayyid  1 , Dale C Roberts  2 , Jun Hua  3   4 , Adrian Paez  3   4 , Di Cao  3   4 , Amanda M Lauer  1   5 , Bryan K Ward  1
Affiliations

Acoustic Noise Levels in High-field Magnetic Resonance Imaging Scanners

Armaan F Akbar et al. OTO Open. .

Abstract

7-Tesla (T) magnetic resonance imaging may allow for higher resolution images but may produce greater acoustic noise than 1.5- and 3-T scanners. We sought to characterize the intensity of acoustic noise from 7- versus 3-T scanners. A-weighted sound pressure levels from 5 types of pulse sequences used for brain and inner ear imaging in 3- and 7-T scanners were measured. Time-averaged sound level and maximum sound levels generated for each sequence were compared. Time-averaged sound levels exceeded 95 dB and reached maximums above 105 dB on the majority of 3- and 7-T scans. The mean time-averaged sound level and maximum sound level across pulse sequences were greater in 7- than 3-T (105.6 vs 91.4, P = .01; 114.0 vs. 96.5 dB, P < .01). 7- and 3-T magnetic resonance imaging scanners produce high levels of acoustic noise that exceed acceptable safety limits, emphasizing the need for active and passive noise protection.

Keywords: 3‐Tesla MRI; 7‐Tesla MRI; acoustic noise; brain imaging; inner ear imaging.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare that there is no conflict of interest.

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
A‐weighted MRI acoustic noise for a sample T1‐weighted sequence (A, B) and study average A‐weighted SPL at 3 T (red) and 7 T (blue) with (dotted line) and without (solid line) hearing protection, versus permissible noise exposure limits by OSHA (C). MRI, magnetic resonance imaging; OSHA, Occupational Safety and Health Administration
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

References

    1. Brummett RE, Talbot JM, Charuhas P. Potential hearing loss resulting from MR imaging. Radiology. 1988;169(2):539‐540. 10.1148/radiology.169.2.3175004 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Kanal E, Shellock FG, Talagala L. Safety considerations in MR imaging. Radiology. 1990;176(3):593‐606. 10.1148/radiology.176.3.2202008 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Shellock FG. Policies, guidelines, and recommendations for MR imaging safety and patient management. J Magn Reson Imaging. 1991;1(1):97‐101. 10.1002/jmri.1880010114 - DOI - PubMed
    1. De Wilde J, Grainger D, Price DL, Renaud C. Magnetic resonance imaging safety issues including an analysis of recorded incidents within the UK. Prog Nucl Magn Reson Spectrosc. 2007;51(1):12. 10.1016/j.pnmrs.2007.01.003 - DOI
    1. Foster JR, Hall DA, Summerfield AQ, Palmer AR, Bowtell RW. Sound‐level measurements and calculations of safe noise dosage during EPI at 3 T. J Magn Reson Imaging. 2000;12(1):157‐163. 10.1002/1522-2586(200007)12:1<157::aid-jmri17>3.0.co;2-m - DOI - PubMed